Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

In 1000 hours, a 100W lightbulb costs an order of magnitude more electricity than the puchase price. You can easily increase the lifetime of such a bulb to 10k hours, simply be reducing the operation temperature by 20% or so.

Of course, this halves lumens/W, to to get the same brightness, you need 200W of power - which means you pay twice as much over those 10k hours as if you have bought 10 100W bulbs to last that time.

High power lamps, for example in flashlight, used to be specified to operation times below 100h, because this allowed them to almost double the battery runtime...

I'm not sure what's insightful about this post. While it may be true that nobody would have profited in any significant way from longer lasting lightbulbs, obviously the manufacturers would have profited significantly from shorter lasting ones.

"take a serious look at the CIA World Factbook" is a perfect excuse to bring up facts out of your ass without source. I'm not sure what numbers you looked at, but you couldn't be more mistaken.

Argentina's export of beef to the US is insignificant to its economy, especially since historically it had too many problems with the restrictive policies of the US for importing meat. They even completely blocked export of meat for 6 months, a while ago, to divert meat to the internal market. If this was so critical for its economy, they wouldn't have done that, I suppose?

Moreover, the TOTAL of exports from Argentina to the US are in no way critical to the Argentine economy. For instance in 2011 only 4% of the argentine exports landed in the US. For comparison, 18% went to Brazil, and more goods were imported to Chile and China than to the US.

If there's any doubt left, argentine meat exports (independently of destination) represented in 2011 just 2.2% of all exports.

I didn't read the paper, but the conlcusion seems a bit stupid. A discount of $0.65 for something that costs $0.70 is pretty different than a discount of $0.65 for something that costs $10, so in the context of the experiment in question saying that people value their privacy $0.65 seems misleading. I question the interpretation of the findings.
Why not make the same experiment with people being offered to pay for privacy in a free service?

If you want measure success rate based on clicks, you have to make a standarized test where
1) you make sure that the questions are not answered in the preview text already. Examples include unit conversion, weather report, money conversion, etc (e.g. 100 USD in EUR).
2) more importantly, the questions AND the people doing the search are the same, or at least very similar, for both engines.
The reason why this is important is that if you put some stupid idiot to do a search, it is possible that after searching for "candy" and getting a result like "free chandy! click here! not a scam!" he would click (of course it is also posible that, that the search terms he enters is not too smart, thus not leading to a good result).

Interesting... I've never been on a flight (during which the pilot announced the cruising altitude or I had access to flight data via seatback entertainment system) higher than 37K, and I've been on various transcontinental flights, transatlantic flights, and transpacific flights.

The Paris-Rio de Janeiro flight from Air France, when done by an Airbus A330, goes most of the time at 41K feet.
I know this because I was surprised when I saw this and I thought it to be outside the operational range of the plane. It turns out 41K is precisely the ceiling service of that plane.
I've also seen repeatedly altitudes of 39K ft (for example in flights from europe to south asia).
BTW, near the equator, the altitude at which a plane can operate is much higher than near the poles, and it is also necessary to fly higher because of the equatorial storms.

If you don't love creating art , you shouldn't become an artist , because you will never be happy.

Really, I don't understand your logic. Why will I never be happy? Just because I do something I don't love? You think the waste collector loves his work? Does it mean he will never be happy? There's more to life than what you do for a living, whether it's art or garbage collection.
Some people do stuff with ulterior motives, not just in pursuit of happiness. Take a politician; you may hate the job but you want to fight for your ideals. Even the artist, maybe he wants to convey a message; maybe doing art is therapeutic for him; or maybe he's in it for the money.
"Art gives me money. Money makes me happy. Ergo art makes me happy."
What's wrong with that? You don't have to love art to follow that reasoning. Some people are really good at stuff they don't *love*.

The purpose of being an artist is to create art because it is what you love.

You should be modded "pretentious" instead of "insightful". Since when that's the purpose of being an artist? According to whom?
I thought you didn't need a purpose for being an artist. And most certainly you don't need to love reating art to be an artist.

IAAB (I am a Brazilian). Sure, anonimous posting is forbidden by Constitution. So is interest rates greater than 12%/year. It's more complicated than that.

It's more complicated than that? Anonimous expression being forbidden in the constitution (wihtout exceptions) is terrible. I don't see how it could be "more complicated than that". Even if this fact is not enforced (i.e. you're not going to be prosecuted for posting anonymously) it always leaves the doors open for *someone* to be prosecuted for your words. In fact this is the very purpose of the law.
I find this sinister, and it makes me want to leave this country (I am in Brazil, too).